Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, in his vociferous opposition to U.S. negotiations with Iran, has argued with particular force against the easing of international sanctions against Iran. His logic? No sanctions should be lifted until Iran abides completely by those international agreements it has been violating in the pursuit of nuclear advancement.

Israel’s problem is that this is a similar argument many Palestinians and peace proponents have been making for years: that Israel should be pressured by the international community to forgo its settlement enterprise, deemed illegal by international law.

In some ways, Israel’s approach to Iran has echoed arguments long made by its Palestinian adversaries. Over the past few weeks, Israeli leaders frequently said Iran must be forced to comply with United Nations resolutions and International Atomic Energy Agreements that it has been violating for years. Similarly, the Palestinians insist that Israel must live up to prior promises to evacuate settlements considered illegal under international law.

“It shows a double standard,” said one senior Palestinian official involved in the talks, speaking on the condition of anonymity under an American dictate not to discuss them publicly. “If they expect to reach a solution in Iran by pushing more and more sanctions, why shouldn’t they expect from our side to push for sanctions against Israel?”

This strange alignment – Israel’s opposition to the Iran deal mirroring Palestinian opposition to Israel’s geopolitical stances – has even inspired some to conclude that the interim deal struck with Iran could serve as a model for Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations going forward.

One such person is Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian Authority’s lead negotiator:

On Monday, Saeb Erekat, the lead Palestinian negotiator, called it a “unique precedent” and “platform” that should be applied to the peace process.

“What happened in Geneva is a new prototype where everybody has shared in reaching an agreement to avoid war and achieve stability,” Mr. Erekat said in a statement. “We call upon the international community to make use of the same efforts in order to end decades of occupation and exile for the people of Palestine in order to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israel and Palestine.”

Netanyahu’s berating of President Obama on the phone, and Israeli officials’ public condemnation of the Iran deal, may be playing well in the short term at home.

However, internationally, such opposition is doing nothing but strengthen the hand of those Middle East peace proponents who agree with Israel’s approach: that pressure should not be eased against violators of international law until the violations stop.

Ironically, by opposing the Iran deal, Israel is supporting the notion that the only way to compel it to abandon the settlements and occupation is via international pressure.

David’s reference to the international pressure against Israel is a veiled reference to his support for BDS. But BDS does not seek a two-state solution; it seeks a full right of return of refugees and their descendants (and their descendants’ descendants), along with a purported “full equality” that would abolish Israel as a Jewish state.

That is not a model for peace, David. But I think you are well aware of that. ; )

No AoT, Israel doesn’t require ethnic cleansing to exist but the Palestinians do demand ethnic cleansing in the future state of their own. But hey don’t let that distract from “The Narrative”.

There are indeed of forced movement in 1948 on the part of both the Jews and the Palestinians. To claim that 750,000 Palestinians were “ethnically cleansed” is a completely false meme. Some were moved yes, but most left on their own accord fleeing a war zone OR because their Arab brethren told them too. In either case, Israel is under no obligation to let them return. They have no reason to commit national suicide because you want the Palestinians to realize their own national aspirations. Sorry but, yours (and DHG’s) dream of an “Israel free Middle East will simply have to wait.

The map of Israel according to Theodor Herlz, one of the creator of Zionism, covers from the Nile River to the Eufrates river.
How could they look for a peace agreement that contradicts their goal..?

Iran has NOT attacked any coubtry at least in the last century but has been attacked by others but not Israel thet with the excuse of “need to defend themself” has done in multiples ocassions.
Other countries must have the right to defend themselves also.

Iran calls the shots for Hizbollah and there really is no “daylight” between the two. You do know there were Revolutionary Guard Advisors to Hizbollah both in Lebanon and now in Syria, where Hizbollah plays the role of proxy Iranian forces. Right?

The map according to Herzl? What mattered is the partition agreement that the Arab world flatly rejected. As for Iran, they have this proxy army called Hezbollah that does their dirty work. Iran now had Republican Guards in Syria fully engsged. And what do you call Iran’s attack on yjr Jewish community center in Argentina?

1. David made a very simple point that not one of the responders addressed: The official Israeli response to the Iranian nuclear program — Iran’s breaking of international law — is quite similar to the Palestinian position on the Israeli settlement program — Israel’s breaking of international law.

2. It would be very helpful if the responders could get past the old, thread-bare arguments and present us with some new thinking.

Gene: David made a not so subtle point about favoring international pressure on Israel. He has written in the past that the international pressure he supports is BDS, a cause that seeks a resolution where Israel no longer exists as a Jewish state. It is more than fair to point that out.

Let me try to understand this. A modern democratic nation which is only 9 miles wide and is surrouded by genocidal enemies thinks that it should be held to a different standard than a giant medieval theocracy run by mullahs who think the Mehdi will return bring about the end of the world and want a nuclear bomb. And you think this is a bad thing because why?